Leaderboard

Dear War Thunder Developers! We, players of the War Thunder simulator mode (SB), who play mainly Enduring Confrontation mode, turn to you with what we consider to be currently the most critical matter related to this game mode. Firstly we would like to thank you for all the effort you put into our game mode, Enduring Confrontation, detailed cockpits, and VR support. From our side, we try to show our appreciation to the game from it's very beginning. Not only do we play it, enjoy it and bring friends with us to play, but also those who can afford it are happy to spend their money to purchase premium accounts and vehicles. The problem we now all see with Enduring Confrontation (EC) and reason behind this petition, is the current in-game economy. In a series of changes and especially as result of the latest economy updates, player's progress through ranks has been slowed down to the point of making the game unplayable. Currently even very good players with premium accounts and vehicles struggle sometimes to generate positive income of in-game currency - Silver Lions (SL). Because of the high skill level entry point of the air combat simulator genre, most less experienced players, who often have kill-to-death ratio (K/D) below one and who on average win 50% of their games, are constantly facing risk of monetary loss. Because of this, their progress in the game is stopped at a very early stage and they often get discouraged from playing. We understand that the economic changes of the last 2-3 years were largely due to the struggle of developers with abusers and professional “farmers”, but we believe that countermeasures against violators should not deprive honest players of the opportunity to fly in your flight simulator. In regard to the above, we urgently ask you to improve the economy of the Sim Enduring Confrontation to an acceptable state as soon as possible. This would allow the players to feel comfortable even when playing the now very popular jet planes. If those changes will not happen soon we sadly foresee substantial outflow of players from our game mode and game altogether. Many left already, but every day more and more people are considering this move. Some will leave as a sign of protest but most will leave out of frustration of not being able to progress in a game they like, even despite having a premium account. Sincerely, Pilots of the simulator community of War Thunder ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @Stona @Smin1080p @OrsonES The above message is also posted on Russian War Thunder forum: https://forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/309806-otkrytoe-pismo-razrabotchikam-ob-ekonomike-rezhima-sb-protivostoyanie/ ,translated versions can be found on sub forums of regional communities: French: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/530628-lettre-ouverte-aux-développeurs-concernant-la-situation-actuelle/ German: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/530616-ein-offener-brief-an-gaijin-von-der-war-thunder-simulator-community/ Italian: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/530623-una-lettera-aperta-a-gaijin-dalla-comunità-sim-di-war-thunder/ Korean: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/530624-%EC%8B%9C%EB%AE%AC%EB%A0%88%EC%9D%B4%EC%85%98-%ED%8C%8C%EC%9D%BC%EB%9F%BF%EC%9D%98-%EA%B3%B5%EB%8F%99-%ED%83%84%EC%9B%90%EB%AC%B8/ Polish: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/530619-list-otwarty-społeczności-symulacji-do-twórców/ Portuguese: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/530621-uma-carta-aberta-para-gaijin-da-comunidade-de-simulação-do-war-thunder/ Spanish: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/530618-una-carta-abierta-para-los-desarrolladores-de-parte-de-la-comunidad-de-simulación-de-war-thunder/ Turkish: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/530620-simulator-savaslari-gelistiricilerine-enduring-confrontation-ekonomisi-icin-mektup/ same statement can also be found on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/osqs5a/an_open_letter_to_gaijin_from_the_warthunder_sim/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/WarthunderSim/comments/osqs00/an_open_letter_to_gaijin_from_the_warthunder_sim/

According to Stona, a new spec has been abruptly released that allows all avatars to use only in-game images and also makes signatures unusable. I really do not like this spec. Why didn't Gaijin notify us before implementing this specification? Custom avatars are especially important on a forum like this, and I feel like this change has taken away a lot of people's individuality. I personally hope they revert back to the old specs now. If you support the Friends of RU forum: https://forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/332008-ubrat-na-forume-sistemu-avatarok-iz-igry/ https://forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/332038-vernut-kostyumnye-avtarkii-i-podpisi/

Dear players, Firstly, we would like to extend our sincerest apologies to each and every one of you. We deeply regret the fact that our actions have let you down, and that we have failed to adequately address the concerns you have voiced over time. We share your passion for the game, and it pains us that our decisions have not lived up to your expectations. Over the past week, we've been diligently analyzing the feedback you've provided. We acknowledge and agree with your concerns regarding the balance of the economy (Silver Lions and Research Points), as well as modification research. We have therefore prioritized addressing these issues as our immediate concern. We are in the process of creating a plan to tackle these problems. While we have made some initial progress in understanding the scope of these issues and potential solutions, we anticipate providing a more detailed roadmap by the 14th of June. We understand the urgency you feel for changes to be implemented, and we assure you, we share your eagerness. However, given the scale and complexity of a project like War Thunder, some time is required to ensure that any changes we make are both effective and beneficial to the player experience. We are also continually reviewing the vast array of other feedback and suggestions we receive. Rest assured, these are important to us and will be addressed, but at this moment, our first priority remains the game's economics and progression. We are truly sorry for the disappointment and frustration that we have caused. We commit to you that we are doing everything we can to improve the game, and regain your trust. Thank you for your understanding and patience during this time. We value your continued support and your dedication to the game we all love.

Guys: If you would like a tank-only mode added, but don't want to read 700-ish pages, just add the comment that you would support a tank-only mode of realistic combat to this thread. I propose they add a tanks-only mode, just like "Ground Realistic Battles", but with the old style of spawn points and without any air spawns. (planes or helicopters) They closed the thread where people were complaining about CAS being overpowered. It is obvious the developers do not want to move on that topic, but not every battle in the war had tanks and airplanes. Only the end of the "Battle of the Bulge" had air at all, due to dense fog and low cloud cover, just as one example. I don't ask that anything be changed about the current "Ground Realistic Battle". If, as the pilots tell us, this is not a fun mode of play, then it will quickly die from lack of interest. If, however, it does have lots of interest, then maybe this game will keep more active players, as not everyone wants to be a pilot. There are actual players that only want to drive tanks, believe it or not. I think the only objection to this will be that tankers will largely desert the current realistic tank battles in favor of tanking without airplanes. I see this as something that is actually likely, in that tankers are frequently disappointed when too many of either side takes to the air and ruins the game. (Successful planes on the enemy side mean your side gets slaughtered. Successful planes on your side mean the other team is blown away and there are no more targets, except there's always someone hiding somewhere, so everyone winds up just waiting for the round to end. Crap pilots on the other side mean there are suddenly no more ground targets, and your side winds up waiting for the game to end again, only if one of the enemy goes afk, his plane can keep the round going for quite a while, while everyone waits again. Lastly, if your team takes to the air and leaves you on the ground, and they aren't brilliant at killing tanks/planes, you quickly find you cannot cap anything, and are outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1 no matter where you go, and then you're spawncamped. This is the worst and most likely to occur when there is only one zone to capture, in that the advantaged team will nearly always have at least someone go and spawncamp the enemy, then the rest of the tanks need to either follow the camper to the spawn or just sit and wait for someone on the other side to kill the camper. Can we give a Tanks-only mode a shot? If it does empty the tankers out of the combined arms battle, it could always be adjusted in some way to entice tankers to come back to it. Also, events could be set up where tanker skill could actually be good for getting the tanks. (Pilot skill is currently the more useful in events for getting both tanks and planes, with tanking skill not being anywhere near as rewarded) Until such time as Gaijin does decide to set up a mode for tanks-only, if you're not happy with the current GFRB, please say so on the forums. If you're not the sort to type on the forums, at least quit doing what you're not enjoying. Try something else. Try cap-and-flying or maybe naval battles instead of beating your head against the same game mode if you're not having fun. The benefit to trying flying is that you might learn better how to kill aircraft. (Or what can be done in a ground vehicle to make a harder target for planes!) A poll is available for those who care to quickly show their opinion on the matter:

As you know, it is possible to create War Thunder account in the PlayStation 4/5 version of the game and link it to email in order to login with it on official forums or PC-version of the game. We are now offering opportunity to unlink your PSN-bound account. As a result of this procedure, you will have 2 separate accounts - original one that you can still use from the console (but can't use in PC version anymore), and another fully fledged PC-account with no restrictions for using Gaijin Store etc. In-game progress will be saved at the moment of unlinking and after that will be no longer be shared and will become independent on each platform. Prerequisites For technical reasons, at this stage we do not offer the unlinking for accounts that also played and have purchases for PC versions of our games (Crossout, CRSED, Star Conflict). If you are willing to sacrifice your progress/purchases in those titles, inform support about this in your request. The email your PSN-account is bound to has to be verified (you can check this in your profile at https://store.gaijin.net/user.php), otherwise you won't be able to reset your password and enable 2-step authorization once the unlinking is complete. In order for email to be verified, it has to be working address and you should have access to it. Please ensure it before proceeding with unlinking, this article might be helpful for you - https://support.gaijin.net/hc/en-us/articles/115005277969-Additional-e-mail-addresses-binding-Linked-e-mail-addresses-removal-Login-management You have to leave your squadron if you are a member of any. You will have to enlist back to it once the unlinking is finished. Keep in mind: Only purchases made for GE in-game in console version (including premium account time) will remain on PC account. Golden Eagles balance of the PC account will be set to 0. So it is advised that you spent any Golden Eagles left on the original PSN-account before initiating the unlinking, although it's up to you. Silver Lions balance is preserved. Any premium account time included into vehicle packs from the PlayStation Store will not be transferred, only the vehicles themselves (except for PS Store exclusive A-26 Invader). All "market" inventory items such as unused vehicle and skin coupons and trophies will remain on the original account. If you want to keep the content provided by those items on PC account, you have to consume them before unlinking. But boosters, wagers, orders, discount coupons etc will be transferred to new account. Save your controls presets into a file while in PC version with your existing account, so you can import them later with a new one. All vehicle presets will not transfer to new account, you will have to recreate them. Friends list will be reset Squadron vehicles research will be saved on a new account except for the last 3 days. To continue research, you will have to join squadron again. It's a one-time, one-way offer. It is not possible to link the accounts back again, or bind another email to your original PSN-account. Once you spent all GE and inventory items (or are willing to proceed regardless) and left the squadron, login at https://support.gaijin.net and submit a new request (use the button at the top of the website next to your nickname). You can pick any category, the only thing that's important is that you name the request "Unlinking PSN-bound account" Note! The average transferring process time takes up to 2 work days (and is provided only Monday to Friday), but this may change depending on the amount of pending requests. While the unlinking is undergoing, your account will be frozen to prevent login to the game and interfering with the process. You will be notified in the support ticket once all is done.

Hello! This thread is dedicated to the little things that would improve our War Thunder experience. Most of these things will not affect the gameplay much, but will give the game a bit more authenticity and visually diversify it. This list will be split into 3 main types: Air / Ground / Naval. Please feel free to share your thoughts and ideas. AIR: animations, visuals and details Modern parachutes and eject animations Refreshed afterburners Refreshed missile rocket moto r graphics Rotating front wheel on some aircrafts Air intakes animations for all jets that have it (we already have them but not functioning as we can see here) Folding wings for carrier based aircrafts Functional blast deflectors on carriers Vapor effects when doing high-g turns Refreshed mach cone Optional lights on aircraft (formation lights, landing / take off lights etc.) Runway lighting on modern airfields More pilot 3D models considering the times Cockpit sound / visual warnings Weather effects on cockpit canopy RWR sound depending on aircraft More realistic audio sound when pulling high-g maneuvers (example here) Bullet holes and cracks in cockpit glass after being hit Proper bomber cockpits life improvements Fuel "slider" Ability to see the current M TOW and TWR based on the set up of the aircraft RWR toggle Jettisoning for aircrafts Better SAS controls in simulation battles (forum suggestion here) Autothrottle / autopilot implementation Ammunition status for bomber gunners Ability to see selected bombing target on the minimap Ability to zoom-in the sight in the cockpit without locking the view Pop-up window if created cuson loadout already exists HUD indicator when engine is off Bomb fuse delay saved separately between the planes systems and gameplay Remodeled RWR (missile launch warning etc.) Working optical landing system (OLS) on carriers NAVAIDs system implementation Multi stage afterburner implementation Fire extinguishers Drop tanks Radar lead indicators Radar jammers IR jammers Implementation of MAW system for some top tier jets Ability to drop chaff / flares separately Compressor stalls Terrain-following radars Performance penalty for ripping off canopy Implementation of flying cysterns and air refueling Implementation of AWACS aircrafts for simulation battles Implementation of proper "loft" mechanics for missiles GROUND: animations, visuals and details More tanker 3D models considering the times Custom commander sights Camouflage nettings Detailed tank crews animations Detailed MG animations Ability to remove mudguards Ability to remove additional armor plates (Schurzen plates for example) More destructible buildings Working lights Animation for tank commander popping out of the turret when using binoculars in game Addition of realistic optics filter depending on type Addition of realistic blurr on the edges of gunner's sight (real life photo for reference) Different thermal vision color depending on the vehicle Reworked tank crew sounds (similar to new crew sounds for naval) Crew sounds depending on the operator country life improvements Stock APFSDS shells for top tier tanks Stock NVD for tanks that have it (thermals should stay researchable) Stock FPE and Parts (more info here) More detailed information about tank's engine in x-ray view (full engine name and type etc.) Ability to manually lower / fold the ATGM launchers on some vehicles Removal of "white tint" in binoculars and gunner's sight systems and gameplay Radiator damage affecting engine performance (RB / SB) Commander sights expanded to lower rank vehicles that had them Regenerative steerings (forum post here) Loader's skill expansion to ammunition replenishment and MG reload Ability to replenish FPE on capture zones Ability to replenish ammo and repair on spawn NAVAL: animations, visuals and details Improved visual destruction models Captain view available (something like 1st person view here) Custom sight functionality Scout Plane cockpits Bomber sight for the Scout Planes (the ones added to ships in naval) that should have them Visual holes after torpedo penetration life improvements In-battle torpedo settings adjustment Ammo rack and ready rack status (similar to ground vehicles) Ability to create user skins for Scout Planes systems and gameplay Improved scout plane mechanics (existing suggestion here) *additional* GENERAL GAME IMPROVEMENTS: Overall interface rework (for example we have this concept) HUD rework for all branches Ability to view the full battle report after closing it More camouflage patterns Reworked clan battles Similar vehicles foldered (A-7E and A-7D for example) Warbound shop test-drives including rare / event vehicles Expanded map ban and dislike options Reworked and expanded personal stats Increased decal / decoration slots Addition of semi-historical filter for decals when selecting what content to be shown in game to a user. Separation of semi-historical category for skins into two categories: semi-historical for skins that were used on the same vehicle model (just a minor variant like MiG-23M/MF) and semi-realistic for skins that are based on historical patterns, but not used on the vehicle variant specifically Ability to filter unlocked skins from skin list (Gaijin market and in-game) Separate "Camera shake" sliders for Ground, Air and Naval Naval aircraft and helicopt ers to be shown on carrier decks in hangar instead of ground base Map rotation depending on era (WW2 / Cold War / Modern) Simple interaction with vehicles in the hangar (flaps, cockpit etc.) Addition of search-filter for decals More lively maps (birds flying in the distance etc.) Expanded weather types in matches (storm or night in air battles for example) Dynamic weather implementation Repair indicator for damaged vehicles in the tech-tree Reworked spectator mode camera (battles and replays) Modification cost in SL and GE in advance before researching and unlocking the mod (visualization here) Separate columns for event / premium vehicles in the tech-tree I'll try to update the list regularly

This topic is made with the intent to appeal to change the new swiss Hunter F.58. As most people now knows, the Hunter F.58 is currently in the german tech tree. I am suggesting that the Hunter F.58 be removed from the german tech tree and be instead but either in the british tree or the french one. My arguments supporting my idea are that the Hunter F.58 is plane that is british in design and operated by a nation that is not (or should I say "was not until now") represented into the game. For the sake of the argument I will formulate my points as if the Hunter was not yet in game. Switzerland not being represented in game should have its vehicles put in a nation that represents it the most or that at the very least the designing country gets to have it. In this case, Britain and France. Why Britain? Because as simply as it is, the Hunter is a british plane in design. It was britain that developped the skeleton of it so to speak. Why France? Because yes, one might argue that Switzerland has connections to Germany and it is true. This can be seen with swiss cold war era tanks, a good example of it being the Leopard 2A4. However it is not Switzerland's strongest connection. The strongest connection Switzerland has being France. I could be very wrong with the following point but I do have a strong feeling that the main reason the swiss Hunter got added in Germany was due to the fact that both countries share a language and that Switzerland's relation with France in the past is not too well known. Switzerland has been closer to Germany militarily speaking since the middle of the cold war. While with France it has been for over a century now (more notably during World War 2). Switzerland made a secret military agreement (La Charité-sur-Loire secret archive) with France during the middle of the 30s in case of german invasion of the french territory. Agreement mentioned on the official swiss government web site At the time, to Switzerland, Germany was seen as a threat. The agreement consisted of forming 9 french divisions that will cooperate with Switzerland aswell as other french infantery divisions to make contact with the swiss army around the village of Gempen, outside of the city of Basel. Switzerland purchased some two hundreds of AMX-13s in the middle of the 50s. More in the past, France also had major influence on Switzerland's development, the most notable one being the formation of the Helvetic Republic, where France imposed a centralisation of the cantons. Making cantons no longer sovereign. As before this, each cantons at the time were fully sovereign, ruling over their own territories and there was no central power. So, for all of these reasons, I do believe and highly suggest that the swiss Hunter be put in the french tech tree. Similarly as to what was done to the SK-105.

We have Commonwealth Nations Vehicle already in-game C2A1 and M1A1 AIM to its orignal developer Country which is Germany and US Adding T-90S to British TT is completely inconsistent. If you look at the Commonwealth relationship, Even Australia and Canada have much closer relationship with UK than India Also India has much closer relationship with Russia than UK. That is why India imports and operates Russian weapons. +Not only It is very awkward to give a Russian-designed tank to Britain, which is pivotal in the NATO/Western world, also the characteristics and uniqueness between Tech Trees disappear. Giving T-90S to British TT is Nonsense What are you even thinking Developers. Please listen to our opinions

(Originally wanted to make a detailed suggestion, but the G.91Y has been made into a suggestion and passed to developers so i was advised by the history consultants to make a small post here about it) Small history segment: The story of the G.91Y starts in the mid 1960s, Fiat decided to develop a new lightweight fighter-bomber, destined to replace the G.91R in the Italian Air Force, and possibly to raise the interest of other air forces who were looking to buy the latest aircraft by Italy. In addition, some requirements from the AM needed the aircraft to be capable of medium-range interdiction missions as a successor to the last F-84F. Fiat decided to start from the G.91T air frame, but due to the amount of modifications In effect, the aircraft was basically a completely new machine, Fiat had named it G.91Y, probably to exploit the overwhelming positive image it had gained through previous G.91 users. After a few modifications and refinement of the design, the first 55 aircraft orders for the Italian Air Force would be completed by march of 1971 (Out of a grand total of 67 aircraft eventually being delivered) Armament (and why it is needed as a top tier CAS) In terms of armament, The G.91Y was equipped with x2 30mm Defa cannons, and for suspended armament the following was available Mk.82 and Mk.83 free-fall or re.tarded bombs, BL.755 cluster bombs, Orione, LAU-3A and LAU-18 rocket pods, Zuni rocket pods, and the whole reason i decided to write this post x2 air-to-ground AS30L (leger) Nords. I did some research myself as i had come across a picture of the G.91Y being shown off at la Bourget in 1967, what caught my eye is that similarly to the other previous G.91 variants, Nords would be tailored to the aircraft. This obviously struck me as prior to that there had been no indication of Nords being able to be used on the aircraft. So after some digging, and my good friend @S__bastienZ88 buying a book in regards to G.91Y armament, we found out that in fact it could carry such armament. Below you'll see a photo i found while doing research on the G.91Y and an extract provided from the book my friend had bought, which lists all the possibile armament that the G.91Y could utilize. Photo of AS30 Nords being part of the available armament for the G.91Y Another angle, where you can clearly see the load-out options more clearly. UPDATE here's a new photo i found while researching the G.91Y, here you can see both the AS-30L (leger) and the AS-20 beside it as being part of the armament. Extract from the book 'Fiat G91Y Yankee 1966 Weapon System' Extra pics! So in conclusion... I would like to make this post to hopefully gain your support in pushing for the G.91Y with Nords, which would be a very easy addition for the Italian tech tree, and would also allow such addition to provide Italy with a very capable top tier CAS aircraft, something that as of now we are completely missing in the main tree. There is also a slight chance that the G.91YS could utilise it however as of now we have no indication it could, so if you have anything to add in regards to that please feel free to write it in the comments below.

Hi, first of all, we have seen Turkish camouflages in the data mine recently, it is true to say that we got a little hopeful about this, first of all, when I saw the camouflage of the Leopard 2A4 tank, our community suddenly revived and I felt the need to open a topic. In addition, the survey is quite ahead in the ground forces opened by PikPikker. If it is going to be a tree study, we try to help with the information we have, it is enough to have the first aircraft and tanks in both the land forces, the air force and the navy You can also add the topics opened in the forum about the Turkish Tech Tree under this topic.

1) I gave two polite and constructive opinions under your newest article: https://warthunder.com/en/news/8260-how-progression-and-economy-is-built-in-f2p-games-and-war-thunder-in-particular-en 4h later still didn't show up. Giving feedback can be very frustrating. 2) The forum is very strictly moderated, with many subforums that are attended by active "few". Personally if I will pop in here, I would read just general discussion. I would rather play in my free time than spend an hour on forum. Closed and moved topics in "general" are norm. All that seems to be not a problem on Reddit. 3) You receive regular feedback about the Heavy grind and "crazy" events, even on premium accounts, from paying players and its getting only worse - clear signal that you are not listing enough. My perception is that feedback is only slowing down the "degradation". The biggest win perhaps is when you cancelled plans for "premium" vehicle modifications based on feedback. I get it is F2P game, but at least reward and ease up the grind for already paying players in more significant way. Premium time feels like standard time, or less. Negative* Reviews are just the next step for tired and frustrated fans to express disappointment. The article suggest that it is unfair and you are misunderstood, but I don't think this is the case, I think it is you who don't understand your long standing player base. *Edited to rectify incorrect use of "Review bombing"

Ukraine Ground Forces Tree A Ukrainian T-64BV moving towards combat positions. Emblem of the Ukrainian Army, the Ukrainian Flag, and the Emblem of the Ukrainian National Guard. The Tech Tree as it would appear in-game. Description: The current form of the Ukrainian Armed Forces came about in 1991 with the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or the Soviet Union. During this time, Ukraine declared its independence and inherited several Guard's Army's and Tank Battalions which included several thousands of pieces of military equipment. Due to budget constraints, much of the equipment was sold, however Ukraine continued to develop its proven arms industry and exported its military hardware to country's like Pakistan, Thailand, Georgia, Azerbaijan, or the Congo. Ukraine today continues to be a global producer of arms and is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. This tree is to bring about the introduction of the Ukrainian Armed Forces into War Thunder. This is due to the many unique vehicles developed in Ukraine throughout its history, even through the Soviet Union. In recent history, organizations/entities such as Ukroboronprom and/or the Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau have coordinated in developing vehicles like BTR-3, and BTR-4 series of vehicles and the BM-Oplot. Ukraine has also developed new vehicles altogether such as the Varlan, the Otaman-3, and Kevlar-E. The Ukrainian BM-Oplot, a heavily modified T-84 Oplot that features several enhancements in firepower, maneuverability, communications, and protection in the form of the Shtora-1 APS, and indigenous Duplet-2M ERA . An advanced 3BM44U1 APFSDS-T round developed for the autoloader of the T-84 Oplot/BM-Oplot with over 600mm of penetration. It’s status and development into the 3BM44U2 APFSDS-T round remain unknown. Rough translation: "A promising Ukrainian development, the 125mm armor-piercing sub-caliber 3BU44U1 projectile features elongated rod and new firing device. The total weight of the round is 22.1kg, the declared initial speed is 1700m/s. Some advertisements have claimed that this round provides armor penetration of at least 600mm. Developed by TASCO Corp., in Kyiv." The Otaman-3 IFV, one of Ukraine's newest 6x6 vehicles that was developed for the Ukrainian Naval Infantry Corps. Different ATGM's and GL-ATGM’s produced by Ukraine. The ‘Konus’ is designed to be fired from 120mm barrels like that if the T-84-120 ‘Yatagan’ and the ‘Kombat’, the primary GL-ATGM of the Ukrainian Army, is designed to be fired from 125mm barrels like that of the T-64BV zr. 2017, T-84U Oplot, or BM-Oplot. The smaller RK-2's are designed to be fired from portable launchers or from light vehicles such as the Otaman IFV and the larger ones from dedicated missile carriers like the Barrier-S. Ukraine has expanded its technology footprint with the introduction advanced ERA such as the Nizh (or Nozh) family which consists of Nizh-LM for light vehicles, Nizh-1M and Duplet-2M for heavy vehicles and main battle tanks. The Nizh-1M and Duplet-2M are designed to offer more kinetic and chemical protection than 4S20U (Kontact-1) and 4S22U (Kontact-5), which Ukraine also can produce. They also introduced or continued to produce Active Protection Systema such as the Shtora-1 and Zaslin. The Zaslin has 3x different types, the standard Zaslin, the Zaslin-L, and a Turkish development of the Zaslin-L, the Akkor-Pulat. The Zaslin is in use with the Armed Forces of Ukraine and Türkiye. ERA protection values which includes: Nizh-LM, 4S20U (Kontact-1), 4S22U (Kontact-5), Nizh-1M, and Duplet-2M. Image comes from an article 'Ukrainian Defense Review #4' which routinely provides updates on the Ukrainian Defense Industry, and is in regular contact with Ukrainian engineers. Zaslin Hard-kill Active Protection System that can be equipped to main battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and other platforms. Other than ground vehicles Ukraine does have a unique development of helicopters, aircraft, and coastal craft that could be added like the MiG-29MU1 or MiG-29MU2 which fires locally developed ‘Gran’ air-to-air’ missiles, enhanced R-27ER1 and R-27ET1 missiles, and the Kh-29T Air-to-Surface missile, the Su-27UBM1, Su-25UBM1, Mi-24PU1, Mi-2MSB-V, Gyurza-M-class gunboat, etc. No generation V aircraft though. A Ukrainian modernized Su-27S1M multi-role jet. The Ukrainian MiG-29MU2, upgraded to allow it to combat modern aircraft. The indigenous ‘Gran’ air-to-air missile developed by the Ukrainian State Company Luch. It has been in service since 2007 and can be mounted on the MiG-29MU1 and MiG-29MU2. A Ukrainian MiG-29MU2 equipped with a Kh-29 Air-to-Surface missile during testing making it a true multi-role aircraft. A Ukrainian Navy Mi-2MSB-V assault helicopter, based off of the Soviet Mi-2, features armament capability, new engine, electronics, etc. The Gyurza-M-class gunboat. Incorporated into the tree are Georgian vehicles to assist in filling gaps and differentiating from the in-game USSR tree. Can be seen as a minor Georgian Defense Forces sub-tree. In-game: Ukraine has many unique vehicles that have a home in-game. Way to many vehicles in order to be placed as a sub-tree within any nation therefore here is an opportunity to add Ukraine as an independent tree in-game. In order to prevent excessive copy and paste (which is inevitable as Ukraine was a Soviet Socialist Republic/part of the Soviet Union), the tree would start similarly to Israel, beginning at Rank IV. In order to start progressing in the Ukraine Tree, players must reach Rank IV in the USSR Tree. Ukraine can support itself at high ranks with the use of the T-84, and BM-Oplot which has similar capabilities to other MBT's at Rank VII. Arguments/Disclaimers: Arguments for an independent tree: One of the main reasons why this tree was created is due to the vast amount of Ukrainian vehicles that could be added in-game. There are way too many vehicles to be implemented into the USSR tree without overhauling the U/I. According to mods/developers in the past, the addition of extra nations to trees is situational based on needs of the tree and in some cases based on vehicle manufacturer. The UK needed the addition of SA due to vehicle limitations. Same goes for Sweden receiving Finnish vehicles. They both had 4 lines of vehicles, falling behind other nations and a solution was developed. The idea is in the works with Italy receiving Hungary (and possibly some other minor nations) vehicles as well. China, and Israel may receive another line to close the gap between major nations. Germany received Argentine TAM’s in order to have a light vehicle line. The USSR tree is in no way in need of Ukrainian vehicles to fill another line of vehicles. The USSR tree only needs its gaps filled between BR’s which can be filled with existing Soviet vehicles. Russia has a lot more modern vehicles that can also be added to the tree. Therefore, the idea that Ukraine must be attached to the USSR tree is baseless as its based on the needs of the game. There isn't any other post-Soviet state represented in the USSR tree other than Russia. Copy and paste is seen within every tree. The copy and paste in this tree is negligible. Potential compromise: Alter the U/I to allow for multiple-full trees in one, meaning the option to be able to select sub-nations within the USSR tree, with Soviet vehicles being able to be used fully between the different nations. Example, Soviet-era vehicles produced until 1991 can be used by Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Russia, etc., while vehicles developed after that are broken up between the different nations depending on who developed it or if they purchased vehicles from one another. This however, isn't that significantly different from being its own tree that relies on unlocking Rank IV for the USSR. There was no mention of captured vehicles due to political sensitivities. Please keep politics out of this suggestion. Vehicle descriptions will be updated with more information. If there are vehicles that you like and want to change the description i.e. adding more data, PM me with what you want and I will add it to the suggestion. Sources for the suggestions can be found in the associated suggestions. Other sources can be found here: http://progress.gov.ua/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/armored-military-vehicles.pdf https://issuu.com/ukrainian_defense_review/docs/udr_july18_prewi https://issuu.com/ukrainian_defense_review/docs/udr3_magazin_ https://issuu.com/ukrainian_defense_review/docs/udr1_magazine_issuu https://issuu.com/ukrainian_defense_review/docs/udr-03-2015_screen/31 http://uoe.com.ua/main/en/ https://www.ukrspecexport.com/uploads/files/Categories/pdf_5/be2e23.pdf - Copy Link to Search Bar https://glavcom.blogspot.com/2017/03/ukrainian-combat-modules.html https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/ussr/coldwar_soviet_tanks/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Soviet_Ground_Forces#Tanks - References https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сухопутна_військова_техніка_України - References https://www.armyrecognition.com/ukraine_-_russia_conflict_war_2022/ukrtransgaz_from_ukraine_develops_new_mobile_anti-tank_gun_using_soviet_mtlb_and_mt-12_100mm_gun.html https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/1886258.html?ysclid=lbb5bfwaow482714047 https://tanknutdave.com/t72mp-tank/ https://mil.in.ua/en/mass-production-of-shershen-and-zaslon-active-protection-systems-launched-2/ https://web.archive.org/web/20150606103344/http://wartime.org.ua/1895-samohdniy-zrpk-donec-ukrayina.html https://vpk.name/en/494663_the-t-64-t-72-t-80-apu-in-the-donbass-can-install-the-turkish-kaz-pulat.html https://www.generalequipment.info/BTR-70DI.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20200304082417/https://mil.in.ua/uk/news/kb-luch-predstavyv-ptrk-amulet-na-shasi-brdm-2/ Special thanks to everyone who contributed there ideas to the development of the tree. Special thanks to @eleks12 for there Ukrainian Sub-tree suggestion! Suggestion posted below: List of Vehicles Light Vehicles: Medium Vehicles: Heavy Vehicles: Tank Destroyers: Self-Propelled Anti-Air: Premium: Squadron: Event: Drones: Honorable Mentions/Future Additions: Decals and Camouflage "Destroyer" sign on a 2S3M1 Akatsiya of 128th Mountain Assault Brigade. Thanks for Viewing!

Gameplay is too fast at top tier you are encouraging toxicity with your greed. The most equitable outcome (in my view):

People haven't been asking for reduced traction. If anything, people want more traction since tanks right now neither have the traction nor torque to climb slopes that actual tanks easily can. Tackle the issue at its core for once: fix map exploits instead of making traction worse for everyone.

Friends! Ten days ago we asked you to share your key suggestions and complaints about the game in a special survey. As a result, we received 14,562 player submitted entries - many of them being very constructive. It is a very impressive number! Some submissions made a few pages of well organised bullet points. We are very grateful for such active support for the project and a desire to help us make War Thunder better! It is very difficult to process such a great amount of information. But we managed to isolate most of the repeating points and are already working hard on them. Economy and progression More than 90% of feedback entries touched issues with economy and progression. The majority of them were: repair costs and the ability to pay for it by being active in battles and performing specific actions. Including rewards for assisting enemy kills, kill-to-death ratio, point capturing in a team, repair and other help to teammates plus many others. A separate layer of concern was expressed about the time needed by new players to progress all the way up to the top-tiers. About one third of players are concerned with the current BR distribution and methods of assigning BR to a vehicle. As well as about the BR ranges of vehicles in battle. At least 4% of players also paid special attention to such topics as the need to purchase modules, the possibility to have free - perhaps lengthy but free - repairs, and many suggestions in not modifying or significantly rebalancing premium vehicles. All in all, we understand these concerns and will try to encompass ideas on most of them in the upcoming economy roadmap we promised to publish by June 14th. Gameplay About 10% of players also took time to share their ideas and observations about various gameplay issues in War Thunder. We are still assembling the full picture of those thousands of points, but have already focused in some of the most repeated ones: Locations. Especially their size and how susceptible they are to being shot-through in Ground battles. It is a very important topic. We have tried to study our maps over a long time, creating special tools like ‘heatmaps’ of deadly shots together with the player system of likes and bans. With the game growing and many new vehicles added many maps demonstrated either new issues, or older ones became too significant. We are already engaged in reviewing and ‘polishing’ all locations - and it is sure to be part of the upcoming game improvements. Many of you spoke about the inconvenience of night battles. Though we already tried to make some improvements there - like lowering their appearance probability, addition of illuminating shells,- it turned out not to be enough. We will also look into new solutions here. Some other given complaints were about aviation streaks in Arcade Ground battles, ideas how to improve voting mechanics for favourite maps, and ways to improve the survivability of stock vehicles both in ground and air battles. The was a separate pool of ideas related to PvE modes and ways to improve their gameplay and attraction. Naturally we received literally thousands of ideas on specific vehicle models, modules, weapons and features. It is impossible even to list them all here. Which is actually good - since War Thunder is a game about military vehicles, so it is expected they are in the focus. We are carefully studying all feedback and will try to look at it from a fresh point of view. As mentioned, we are still in the process of analysing all of the survey entries and picking up more and more points from these worth examining and doing some extra to work on them. Currently the survey form is closed, but we will continue to make similar general broad feedback polls on the game in the future again. We will also continue to actively listen to your feedback on the forums. Our plan is to conduct such intensive ‘general questions and suggestions’ sessions at least once every 3 months. Some of your suggestions can be put in the game quite quickly - and War Thunder game design and development teams are already working on them. Some will require a more complex approach, and we will plan for them in our roadmap. We will also cover more about these in the news for the game. So since we are planning to release a large economy and progression changes roadmap by June the 14th, we hope to meet many of your wishes on abovementioned issues there. By the way, we have just published a detailed Q&A for video content creators, you might find the answers interesting and relevant to some of your points in them (link). Conclusion Once again, thank you for taking the time and effort to share your thoughts! We have always tried to pay attention to your feedback, but getting such a massive pool of information from players all over the world - is a limitless source of inspiration and motivation for us. Do not be upset if you don’t find your exact points in the summary above - it comprises the most repetitive ideas, but we do and are studying them all. We will work diligently to look at issues from various viewpoints and try to improve as much as possible to allow you to continue to enjoy War Thunder for many years to come.

As you all have seen the Su-39 is coming in the next patch as a premium, It's the most advanced variant of su-25 while they called it export and put it as premium. I suggest replacing Su-39(Su-25TM) with Su-25T that will be the tech tree version aka the baseline that the su-39 was made off Su-25TM(Su-39) modernized Su-25t

Recommendations from the Squadrons for improvement of Squadron Battles The following contains suggestions for improvements to Squadron Battles, with input from the Commanders of 1MAW, 33GAC, 525th, ARMY1, AYAME, BGSTK, BigF, BofSs, CHADS, EUA, GRZLY, HRVZ, INDIA, KAiD, KHAOS, MACV, N, NAT0, NFMG, NOI, PROWL, RO6, STAHL, xTHCx, vTHCv, THICC, TRMC, Unit3, Unit4, and V1PER. Russian Squadrons: AFI, AVR, ARRC, BOYND, EGIDA, FGA, MoSB, MANUL, NEXT, SibAr, and WarCA also support the post. Members of these Squadrons have dedicated countless hours to the gamemode and to their respective Squadrons, and their insights into potential changes to the gamemode come from that experience. This represents the opinions of Squadrons from all over the Leaderboard, not simply the "Top Squadrons." It is our opinion that the issues faced by the Top 5 may not be the same as those faced by those competing for Top 100, and that opinions from all were highly important to the discussion. Please note: below are preliminary suggestions where we believe improvements can be made that will have the greatest beneficial impact to Squadron Battles for the greatest number of Squadrons. At this time we are not proposing exact, highly detailed solutions though those may follow in the future. These were originally designed as talking points for a voice chat we expected to occur. To that end, below offers a summary of the discussion points we believe to be of most importance. These include Airspawns, the Rewards System, Timezones, Promotion of Squadron Battles to the community, and the Points System. Other smaller talking points were included as well, that are aspects of others, not totally discussed out/agreed on, or of less impact. The full document can be found at this link. Below will be summaries taken from that as well. Adjustment of Bomber Airspawns: Rewards System: Timezones: Promotion of Squadron Battles to the Community: Points System: Conclusion: We thank you for taking the time to read the above. To reiterate: the ideas here are nothing more than ideas and talking points we wish to pass on to Gaijin and the Game Developers. Speaking for myself, and I am sure many others, we would be happy to discuss and submit our thoughts in any way we can be it topics here, voice chats, or other forms. We make no demands or ultimatums, but we would implore you to take a serious look into improvements to Squadron Battles. There is a dedicated group who love it, boundless potential to expand it, and benefits for all parties involved if improvements are made. To any Commanders, who after discussions with their Squadrons wish to have their names added to the above list, please feel free to reach out to me on Discord. My DiscordID is Grogdan#7021. Though I authored the document and post, these ideas are not only my own and instead have come from discussions involving the Squadrons listed above. Again, we appreciate the time of anyone who took a serious read into it, and ask that you respond to the poll questions above and leave your own comments below. Remember, these are just ideas. None are perfect, nor have they been refined. They are to get the discussion started and were focused on overarching topics that would have a greater impact rather than tiny nuances, please keep that in mind and we look forward to seeing your responses and thoughts. o7

As we all know the Russian Top-tier aircraft are lacking proper IR missiles. Since no-one is using the R27T because of it unreliable flare ressistance and low turning and little energy we are stuck with R27ER(Which are great for BVR and Radar engagements) and R60s. The addition of the first type of R73 from the first Apex Predators Dev server is needed.

The F-4F IRL has access to 4 AIM-9L's as opposed to 4 AIM-9J's. Gaijin knows this (they said so in a stream), but the F-4F still has 9J's as opposed to 9L's. The initial argument for not giving it the stronger 9L's was that it would be unbalanced, which at the time, I could get behind, after all, it was a slightly worse version of the best plane in the game at the time, the F-4E. Flares hadn't received their buff, and the MiG-23's and F-14A hadn't been added yet, so the F-4F was, while nothing special, relatively competitive with just 9J's at 11.0. It did, and still does, force the F-4F into a dogfighter/BnZ vulture role. It could do that relatively well before the flare buff and the addition of the Floggers and Tomcat. The problem is that the F-4F needs to be either faster or more agile than the enemy, and survive long enough to get in range. The MiG-23's are faster and more agile than the F-4F, and have MTI radar which not only works like a PD radar in that it filters out ground clutter, but (allegedly, I haven't actually seen this in an actual match) also doesn't nail or spike RWR, leaving the target oblivious to the missile. They also have radar missiles to go with it. The F-14A is (by a small, but noticeable amount) faster and much more agile than the F-4F, with AIM-54 Phoenix missiles that can hit their targets from 150 km, and AIM-7F's that, in combination with the Tomcat's powerful radar, are also extremely strong. Both these aircraft are 11.3, only 0.3 br above the F-4F. This means you will encounter them in every match, in fact, they'll make up the majority of the enemy team 8-9 times out of 10. Dealing with them is extremely difficult, while it's extremely easy for them to deal with you. Giving the F-4F AIM-9L's would help a bit, not much since all the things they can do to counter you (shooting you down before you get in range, outturning you so you never get your nose on target, dumping flares as soon as you launch a missile), will still work, it'll just be a bit easier to kill them quickly if you get in range. Because of this, I think the F-4F should finally get the AIM-9L's it has IRL. Maybe also the ability to carry 6 AGM-65B's instead of only 2, I know they only carried 2 at a time during training missions, but in a real battle they would obviously carry more. But if it would just get the 9L's, I would be happy too.

just want to voice my support that, recent coordinated slander by westerners on gaijin is unfounded i will keep supporting this game because this game is the best. ?

Hey, I'm creating this topic after the last update where Russia is the new star again with the brand new pantsir. First of all the 2S6 was already competitive so they were no need to add a new AA to top tier russia. It's been like 2 or 3 maj that Russia is the star of the show and it's really annoying when you are playing others nations (I'm playing french and that is not funny but Im used to it). The Russian top tier is to dominant, I'v been playing like 5 games in a row and despite playing well (making 5-6 kill) I lose all the games because that was the world against russia. The problem is that they have to much vehicules in comparaison of other nations. They are not just good in top tier but also in low to mid tier, basically if you can play correctly you can win pretty much all your game. They don't just have to many vehicules, all there vehicules are competitive and far more powerful than they should be (like the KA-50 amazingly powerful in the game, but in real life it's a brick, laser warning don't work, they are fragile etc..). Russian top MBT are the worse IRL, the recent event show that more than enough. I can understand a little bit why Gaijin just seem to love Russia, bc they love money and a lot of player play Russia. But it's to much, top tier is broken bc of Russia (I'm pretty okay with all the other nations who seem balanced and quite realistic but just Russia is not) and if Gaijin will make Russia the star of the show again in the next update, I think I will just stop playing this game. I could say the same for US in Air RB, but all the nations seem to have a F-16 now and in real life the F-16 is this powerful so I'm more than okay to accept that, but I can't accept the fact that Russia is this powerful in ground RB. My post look like I'm crying bc Russia is to strong, and the answer is yes I'm crying a little but I'm mostly disappointed, I love this game but I can't handle top tier now. Am I alone thinking like that ?

As of the first devserver, Freccia has no commander sight whatsoever. This is clearly wrong, since the CC variant (Contro Carro, meaning anti tank, which is what we'll have in game) uses the Janus commander sights, which are also able to provide day/night imaging through a thermal sensor. Moreover, both CIO (the manufacturer of the Freccia) and Leonardo (the manufacturer of the Janus sights) clearly state that the vehicle has such a device (the latter going as far as clearly stating: "It is an upgraded version of the field-proven JANUS multi-sensor selected by the Italian Army to equip the Freccia multirole Armoured Vehicle (VBM)").

So Gaijin has recently expanded their poor implementation of Air RB EC which is thrown in randomly to jet tier matchmaking. This has led to a big increase in threads here complaining about the "big maps".. I think most of the complaints are valid. However, one type of complaint must be addressed. The new maps "take too long". People complain about travel time, or just the length of the match in general and the size of the maps. This is a simple thing. If you are only interested in rushing into the furball as soon as possible, have no interest in flying planes outside of a furball, or just don't have time for even a 20 minute match, Air RB has never been for you. You should be playing arcade mode for short matches with no travel time or strategy and quick chaotic action. RB is supposed to be longer form with travel time, strategy, and more complex engagement. Don't keep making RB into arcade lite.

At the moment general rules of the matchmaking based on BR. The matchmaker selects the game session for the player in which the spread of the opponent’s vehicle BR will not exceed +/- 1.0 BR from the player’s vehicle. This means that the player will not meet a vehicle which exceeds the BR of his key vehicle (the one on which the matchmaker bases its search for a game session) in battle by more than 1 point of the BRITISH. But if the BR spread is 0.7, it will be easier for everyone to play. That is, when playing on a 4.0 machine, you will come across a maximum of 4.7 or 3.3, and not 5.0 and 3.0, respectively. I think that due to recent developments in the economy of the game and because of the negative reviews, we will be able to do this. Please distribute.

Widen your eyes to see what this is? The J-8D can play PL11, the J-10 can play PL11, that is, the J-8F in the middle can't play PL11, right? Your logic is like a clown！ Could it be that PLAAF is so advanced and powerful that it hurts your Russian pride that you want to do it? Anyone who knows about radar knows that all active radar shells can be used as semi-active missiles, so you think that the J-12F, which is allowed to fire PL12, is not capable of launching PL11? 1473 that's a pulsed Doppler radar! What disease did PLAAF make them deliberately cancel the PL11 guidance capability of the 1473 radar??? The contemporary F8IIM even allowed the launch of the R27, but if you think about it, you won't think that the J8F can't use PL11